So you believe shooting her four times in the chest was justified. All you had to say. It's not a secret at all, nor did I imply it was. I'd have thought that would have been obvious since I quoted a major mainstream newspaper. As for the rest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia Lick that boot.
I don't fashion myself a champion at all, but then I'm not the one who likened a 15 year old black girl to property.
You know that's not what I did, and the fact that you have to make shit up to support your crazy assertions is just delightful
I bet you're actually pretty happy about that, because it really seems to give fuel to your "cause". It must eat you up that the cop was in the right.
and be a black kid, and a cop will fucking end you with four bullet holes to the chest, yeah, I know. Like how you feel good when abortions happen, right?
Amaris think she was shot because she was a black kid. The whole "attempted murder in progress" thing is totally irrelevant. Nothing to do with. Why are we even talking about that? Total red herring.
I'm going to say that I agree with @Amaris that four shots seems excessive. I'll even agree that if communities want to police themselves, go for it, but you still have to be accountable and you still have to follow the law and there probably should some sort of consistent standards across the board, but in the end it's still police by another name. I'll also concede that maybe the cop could have used a taser, but we know that at least one cop can't tell the difference between their taser and their gun. I will not agree that this shooting wasn't justified. The cop had every right to use lethal force to stop this woman from stabbing the other woman.
Four shots is not excessive. I'd say it's commensurate with every ounce of firearms training ever given ever by anybody.
Is there a non-lethal sidearm alternative police could carry? Genuinely curious. Edit: Would a tazer have been safe in this case?
I've never had firearms training other than basic safety instruction in the Boy Scouts which is why I said it seems excessive.
That was my point. From the video, it appears the cop was close enough to use bodily force to stop the attacker.
And that still sounds impractical and dangerous. I'm wondering if there are any practical alternatives to guns besides a taser--which I'm not sure would have worked in this case.
So was Kyle Rittenhouse, and he was successful despite cops being present. He went home unharmed, despite cops being present and aware. He was arrested later, despite having murdered people, and having weapons that were used to murder people. He was white, and that does make a difference.
Basically it means you're on the losing side of the current conversation (obviously) and so your only hope is to address a different scenario, totally unrelated to the first, and point out how that scenario wasn't handled to your liking. Which has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand, but do what works for you.
I should elaborate on something earlier. I've been honest about my frustration with the police officer, and I still consider him shooting her repeatedly to be unjustified, but in truth I've also been trolling just a bit. I couldn't help notice people who are normally stand your ground types rushing to the defense of this officer because someone was defending their home and property against intruders. If she'd had been an old white man with a gun and had shot them both, you'd have seen some comments of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes," and yet here we have people shocked, SHOCKED that I might defend a kid for wanting to protect herself against two assailants. Did she make a wrong turn when she ran after them? Yes, she made the mistake of letting them walk away from her. By doing that, she became the attacker despite her legitimate anger at being attacked. Our laws are not just, they are problematic on so many levels, one of those being just like how it was on the playground when we were kids: you can get away with whatever you want as long as the teacher doesn't see it, but once they do, you're considered guilty, even if you were just defending yourself.
There are a bunch of non-lethal alternatives. However, they have their pros and cons. TV often shows tasers working almost as if they are Star Trek phasers set on heavy stun. One hit and the person drops unconscious. What tasers actually do is --assuming everything works out 100 percent right -- send electricity that causes a person's muscles to freeze up for 5 seconds which will generally make them fall and give the officers a chance to get a person under control. There are a bunch of ifs there -- the taser prongs have to be the right distance apart so that you can get that current, they have to come close enough to the person's skin, and you have to be within a certain distance for the wires from the taser to remain intact, for instance. After five seconds or thereabouts, the person gets control of their muscles until another trigger pull. Also, it's possible that the taser may not lock up someone's muscles and may instead just cause pain. According to Amaris, all Columbus PD officers have tasers. It could be that this officer chose to not use a taser for reasons reflecting the stuff I mentioned above, that the officer was worried it would be ineffective, that the officer was making a split-second decision, or that this officer saw blacks as subhuman and it didn't matter. There are other less-than-lethal forms of weaponry that could be deployed at a distance, but from my understanding, the average cop will not have things like beanbag guns. And again, when lethal force is being used by an attacker, the law says police officers can respond in kind to try to protect themselves or others.
No. Rittenhouse had already murdered people, and he should never have been waved by by the police after the fact, and I don't even think there were any cops around who could have stopped him from shooting those people, but if there were they certainly should have. Just because she was black doesn't mean she should be allowed to murder someone.
Impractical, yes. I agree. But, is it better than shooting? Let's put it this way. Yea, it's a hypothetical. Let's say your teenager and a couple of her schoolmates were in this exact same situation and you are the cop. You get home, get out of your car, just like the cop did. and let's say, for the sake of argument, you have a gun holstered at your hip. What do you do? Not just Useful Idiot, but everyone in this discussion. What would you do?
Looks like we posted past each other. I clarified something here: https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3335609/
Not the way it went down on the video. She wasn't defending herself, because there was no threat against which to defend. There might have been one earlier, but there obviously wasn't one on the video. It would have been no different if it was a white person.
